Asset Publisher Asset Publisher
News archives in this category News archives in this category
Statistics Statistics

PACE Report Doc 13863 (2015) on Abuse of pretrial detention in States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Rapporteur P. Agramunt, 7 September 2015


Thematic factsheets Thematic factsheets









Alerts Alerts
4 January 2019 Creation 12/09/18
6 December 2018 Creation 11/04/17
6 December 2018 Creation 20/06/18
6 December 2018 Creation 17/09/18
9 November 2018 Creation 02/10/17
2 November 2018 Creation 18/04/18
12 October 2018 Creation 07/01/16
26 September 2018 Creation 24/02/17
14 September 2018 Creation 03/10/16
22 August 2018 Creation 22/06/17
21 June 2018 Creation 30/01/18
15 February 2018 Creation 08/08/17
28 December 2017 Creation 04/08/17
6 December 2017 Creation 10/01/17
13 September 2017 Creation 13/09/17
31 August 2017 Creation 21/04/16
20 March 2017 Creation 20/03/17
22 December 2016 Creation 05/02/16
30 September 2016 Creation 27/07/16
13 June 2016 Creation 13/01/16
13 June 2016 Creation 02/04/15
11 May 2016 Creation 30/12/15
31 March 2016 Creation 13/01/16
28 March 2016 Creation 12/10/15
22 October 2015 Creation 02/04/15
22 October 2015 Creation 02/04/15
Replies from member states Replies from member states
Follow-ups Follow-ups

20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Grand chamber judgment on Mehmet Altan’s case. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention for Human Rights. With regards to article 5 §1, according to the Court findings, “Mr Altan’s continued pre-trial detention, after the Constitutional Court’s clear and unambiguous judgment of 11 January 2018 (…), could not be regarded as ‘lawful’ ”. The Court held that “for another court to call into question the powers conferred on a constitutional court to give final and binding judgments on individual applications ran counter to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, which (…) were the cornerstones of the guarantees against arbitrariness”. Under Article 10, the Court held in particular that “there was no reason to reach a different conclusion from that of the Constitutional Court, which had found that Mr Altan’s initial and continued pre-trial detention, following his expression of his opinions, constituted a severe measure that could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society”. The Court pointed out in particular that “criticism of governments and publication of information regarded by a country’s leaders as endangering national interests should not attract criminal charges for particularly serious offences such as belonging to or assisting a terrorist organisation, attempting to overthrow the government or the constitutional order or disseminating terrorist propaganda”.

20 March 2018

On 20 March 2018, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Grand chamber judgment on Şahin Alpay’s case. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) and a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention for Human Rights. With regards to article 5 §1, according to the Court findings, “Mr Alpay’s continued pre-trial detention, after the Constitutional Court’s clear and unambiguous judgment of 11 January 2018 (…), could not be regarded as ‘lawful’ ”. The Court held that “for another court to call into question the powers conferred on a constitutional court to give final and binding judgments on individual applications ran counter to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, which (…) were the cornerstones of the guarantees against arbitrariness”. Under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments) of the Convention, the Court held that it was incumbent on the respondent State to ensure the termination of Mr Alpay’s pre-tria detention at the earliest possible date. Under Article 10, the Court held in particular that “there was no reason to reach a different conclusion from that of the Constitutional Court, which had found that Mr Alpay’s initial and continued pre-trial detention, following his expression of his opinions, constituted a severe measure that could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society”. The Court pointed out in particular that “criticism of governments and publication of information regarded by a country’s leaders as endangering national interests should not attract criminal charges for particularly serious offences such as belonging to or assisting a terrorist organisation, attempting to overthrow the government or the constitutional order or disseminating terrorist propaganda”.
News archives News archives
7 February 2019 Strasbourg

Event: Democracy at Risk

Council of Europe Resources Council of Europe Resources

PACE Resolution 2077 (2015) on Abuse of pretrial detention in States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights, 1 October 2015


PACE Recommendation 2081 (2015) on abuse of pretrial detention in States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights, Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, rapporteur: Mr Pedro Agramunt, 1 October 2015


PACE Report Doc 13863 (2015) on Abuse of pretrial detention in States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, Rapporteur P. Agramunt, 7 September 2015


Committee of Ministers Recommendation Rec(2006)13 on the use of remand in custody, the conditions in which it takes place and the provision of safeguards against abuse, 27 September 2006


Committee of Ministers Recommendation Rec(2006)2 on the European Prison Rules, 11 January 2006


Thematic factsheets Thematic factsheets





Partners Partners